§ 5.1.2 The Nature and Purpose of the Remedy.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 5.1.2 The Nature and Purpose of the Remedy. Although the remedy of an action for declaratory relief has its analog in Roman Law and a history in Scotland of several hundred years, it “was not part of the English common-law system adopted by the American Colonies.” State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Skluzaeak, 208 Minn. 443, 447, 294 N.W. 413, 415 (1940). See also Trossman v. Trossman , 24 Ill. App. 2d 521, 524, 165 N.E.2d 368, 369 (Ill. App. Ct. 1960) (“[The remedy] was unknown to the common law and is a creature of statute.”). Thus, the remedy solely exists by virtue of statute, and reference must be made to the statutes creating the remedy to determine its availability and scope. Gibraltar Insurance Co. v. Varkalis, 115 III. App. 2d 130, 253 N.E.2d 605 (III. App. Ct. 1969); Trossman v. Trossman, 24 III. App. 2d 521, 165 N.E.2d 368 (Ill. App. Ct. 1960); Clear Lake Apartments, Inc. v. Clear Lake Utilities Co., 537 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976), modified on other grounds, 549 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. 1977). Arizona practitioners will most commonly refer to the federal statutes, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201-2202 (2006 & Supp. 2009), and the Arizona statutes, A.R.S. §§ 12-1831 to -1846 . The latter statutes contain (with revisions) Arizona’s 1927 codification of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. 1927 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 10; A.R.S. § 12-1846 ; Schwamm v. Superior Court in and for Pima County, 4 Ariz. App. 480, 482 n.5, 421 P.2d 913, 915, n.5 (1966). See also 12 Uniform Laws Ann...